Global Ethical Challenges Dialogues - Assignment Example

Assignment: Dialogue Topic: Is it morally permissible to use non-human animals for our own (human) purposes (e.g., for food, clothing, medical experimentation, etc.)? Why or why not? Student’s Name: Course Code: Date of Submission: (Henry enters the room with a lot of groceries. Tom is delighted at the initiative of Henry coming home that evening with supper. Tom rushes to check the two papers that Henry had brought in.) Tom: (After going through the contents of the two papers) What is wrong with you Henry? Henry: I am perfect and I thank the good Lord for the same. Tom: As for me I don’t know who to thank for the predicament am going through simply because am staying with you. Henry: Am not following. Enlighten me. How am I the source of your burdens? Tom: What is with you and vegetables? Henry: Sincerely Tom, you know I am a total vegetarian. Tom: I know and I also know that you know as well that am a fan of meat. Why can’t you even for once bring in some meat for me as well whenever you go shopping? Henry: Am not only a vegetarian but I also have respect for animals. I cannot be an accomplice in the molestation and persecution of animals. Tom: We humans including you Henry have in many instances more often than not used animals as our food, clothing and above all we have been beneficiaries of scientific breakthroughs in the field of medicine. 1 Such research would have never been without the use of animals for experiments. Those researches have generated discoveries that have led saving of millions of human lives. Take for instance the shoes you are wearing now are made from leather that was obtained from the killing of animals. Some of the utensils we use in this house are made from bones obtained from these same animals you are pretending to protect. You an accomplice already by wearing shoes made from the by-products obtained by killing the animals. Henry: Give me a break. The shoes am wearing are made from leather. But that doesn’t mean that the animals from which it was obtained were killed intentionally for the same. It may be they died of a natural cause. And mind you most of my shoes are made from rubber. And I won’t take part in the killing of animals for food or anything otherwise. It is morally wrong and not right. We as human when engaging in any act the consequences of the act must produce pleasure and happiness to the majority and in case if it inflicts pain then the amount of pleasure and happiness it produces surpasses the pain caused.2 Tom: I have already pointed out that because of experiments carried out using animals, discoveries have been made which has ensured the safety and well-being of millions of other lives, human and animal.3 2 Henry: And what about killing for the purpose of eating? How can you justify that one as well? Tom: So you are okay with the animals being used as research instruments? Henry: I have not said so. As a matter of fact I am against the torture of animals irrespective of the reasons. Tom: It is morally right to use animals for scientific research. And in this research the animals are treated with utmost respect and are not subjected to unnecessary pain and distress. Because failure to use such animals for medical research for instance could amount to neglect of the solemn duty to the sick, the disabled and the disease.4 Don’t you think that not finding the right drug for the ailment they are suffering from is also tantamount to torture and persecution? Henry: It is good to take care of people by looking for the right medical discoveries but not at the expense of killing animals. Tom: The moral duty and interest of saving human lives outweighs that of saving the animal’s. Henry: Does it mean that animals do not have rights and interests? Because the principle of equal consideration states that where interests are equal, they must be accorded equal weight in that where human and non-human animals share an interest and in this case the interest is avoiding physical pain. So as much weight ought to be accorded to the violations of the interest of non-humans as it is done to similar violations of the human’s interest.5 3 Tom: Let me enlighten you a bit by pointing out to you that the same principle has exceptions as well. According equal consideration to interests of two dissimilar beings does not mean treating them the same or taking it that their lives are equal. The same principle recognises that the interests of one being are greater than those of the other and thus in applying the principle the one with lesser interests can be sacrificed for the better of the one with greater interests.6 Henry: Am not following. Do you care to elaborate? Tom: (Scarstically). At your service sir. If for instance one is faced with a situation where one has to decide between saving the life of a human being and that of a dog, it is prudent and morally acceptable to save the life of the human being because the human being has greater awareness of what is going to happen, suffers more before dying and at the same time the family and friends of the human being will suffer a great deal if the human dies.7 Henry: Can you get to the point. I need to cook my vegetables. Tom: Patience brother. From the argument we can conclude that the human being has a greater potential for future happiness and thus worth saving. It is the same principle that is used when the decision of using animals for medical research or killing them to feed the starving is made. 4 Henry: Ethical vegetarians, a group where I happen to be a member, are for the view that the same reasons against killing humans for food apply to against to killings animals for food. We also believe that killing an animal like killing a human can only be permissible and justified in extreme circumstances. Eating a living creature simply because of its enjoyable taste, convenience or nutritional value is not enough cause.8 Tom: So you are okay with the same animals being used for medical research? Henry: I haven’t agreed to that either because am not in support of the in-humane handling of animals. Tom: Let me tell you that whenever these animals are being used for such experiments they are handled humanely and in most cases are anaesthetized so as to prevent them from experiencing unnecessary pain. Henry: It is at this point that am also compelled to highlight to you the importance of preserving nature and in essence the sparing of animals. First these animals and nature itself have an intrinsic right to exist and the preservation of the same enhances biological diversity which stabilizes the ecological regimes hence sustaining it for future generations.9 5 Tom: I think we are getting home now. Because your argument about preservation of nature and the animals is not far from what am saying about getting the right medicine to sustain the lives of human beings and other animals. Henry: I think my argument is far from what you are proposing because mine does not involve purposely harming the animals for purported gains. It is letting nature to take its cause and limiting human influence on nature and its animals. Tom: The fact that you are adopting the use of the word harming instead of killing is a forward step in accepting the view of the scientific approach of using animals for scientific breakthroughs that has helped alleviate a lot of suffering in humans and animals alike. Every honest person of whom I know you are agrees that treating animals in some ways is inhumane and unjustified but the good that has been achieved by medical investigations using animals cannot be just wished away. Using animals is an inescapable cost of most successful medical research.10 Henry: Am not refuting the advances that have been made in medicine by using these animals. In most of such researches the animals don’t die and are handled humanely during the entire process. Tom: Using the same animals as food for those undergoing starvation is more of a humane act. Henry: on that front I cannot agree with you because there are other options which can be utilised to feed the starving apart from killing animals for food. 6 Tom: The killing is not indiscriminate. It is ordered. If we go by your argument then we won’t be having the domestication of broilers, beef cattle, mutton sheep and the like. They are simply kept to supply meat. Henry: Tell me; is there any moral consideration in killing these animals? Tom: So letting people starve to death while food in terms of animals is spared? Henry: That is not my argument. Tom: Then what is your argument? Make me understand. Henry: Humans deserve moral consideration, that one I agree but the aspect of moral consideration need not be restricted only to humans; it should be extended to sentient beings whose psychological models are like those of humans, sentient beings of any kind, living things and natural objects of any kind.11 Tom: I have not disputed that but what am trying to say is that the moral considerations cannot be the same across all the sentient beings. There are those who deserve more because if they don’t get more the effects will be much more detrimental compared to the effects of sacrificing other beings. And those who deserve more are human beings. Henry: I cannot dispute the fact that human beings deserve more but that does not take away the right of other sentient beings from enjoying the freedoms associated with moral justice. 7 Tom: The freedoms of those animals do not precede the survival and the well-being of humans. Henry: It is argued that if these humans don’t fend off their starvation by other options at their disposal then it is right to let such individuals to starve.12 Tom: I can’t believe that the protector of the moral rights of sentient beings as you claim will just be happy at the starvation of human beings. Henry: That is not what I really meant. I was trying to point out that there are other ways at the disposal of human beings that they can utilise to fend off starvation rather than killing innocent animals. Tom: Yes, there are other ways of doing that, one is being a vegetarian the way you are. but meat is also a good source of proteins which are very essential in the human body. Henry: Proteins can also be obtained from plants. Tom: I want you to remember that plants are also living things which need also to be subjected to moral considerations. Henry: But there are those that are grown simply for the purpose of being eaten Tom: Exactly. There are also those animals that are specifically raised for the purposes of supplying meat. Henry: I know that. 8 Tom: You do? Henry: Yes I do. But I don’t support the inhumane ways animals are attacked in game reserves for food and other purposes. Tom: The killing of the same animals that are domesticated for meat is okay with you? Henry: I guess everybody should be entitled to the right of choosing what best supplies the proteins one needs; animals or plants. References Attfield, R. (1998). Saving Nature, Feeding People and Ethics. Environmental Values, (7), 291- 304. Baofu, P. (2012). The future of post-human culinary art: Towards a new theory of ingredients and techniques. Newcastle, Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Brennan, A. (1984). The moral standing of natural objects. Environmental Ethics, (6), 35-56. Cohen, C., and Regan, T. (2001). The animal rights debate. Maryland, Rowman and Littlefield Publishers Inc. Guha, R. (1989). Radical American Environmentalism and Wilderness Preservation: A Third World Critique. Environmental Ethics, 11, 71-83. MacNiven, D. (1993). Creative morality. London, Routledge. Miller, H. B., and Williams, W. H. (Eds.). (1983). Ethics and animals. Clifton, Humana Press Inc. Singer, P. Not for humans only: The place of nonhumans in environmental issues. 55-64. Read More

Tom: So you are okay with the animals being used as research instruments? Henry: I have not said so. As a matter of fact I am against the torture of animals irrespective of the reasons. Tom: It is morally right to use animals for scientific research. And in this research the animals are treated with utmost respect and are not subjected to unnecessary pain and distress. Because failure to use such animals for medical research for instance could amount to neglect of the solemn duty to the sick, the disabled and the disease.

4 Don’t you think that not finding the right drug for the ailment they are suffering from is also tantamount to torture and persecution? Henry: It is good to take care of people by looking for the right medical discoveries but not at the expense of killing animals. Tom: The moral duty and interest of saving human lives outweighs that of saving the animal’s. Henry: Does it mean that animals do not have rights and interests? Because the principle of equal consideration states that where interests are equal, they must be accorded equal weight in that where human and non-human animals share an interest and in this case the interest is avoiding physical pain.

So as much weight ought to be accorded to the violations of the interest of non-humans as it is done to similar violations of the human’s interest.5 3 Tom: Let me enlighten you a bit by pointing out to you that the same principle has exceptions as well. According equal consideration to interests of two dissimilar beings does not mean treating them the same or taking it that their lives are equal. The same principle recognises that the interests of one being are greater than those of the other and thus in applying the principle the one with lesser interests can be sacrificed for the better of the one with greater interests.

6 Henry: Am not following. Do you care to elaborate? Tom: (Scarstically). At your service sir. If for instance one is faced with a situation where one has to decide between saving the life of a human being and that of a dog, it is prudent and morally acceptable to save the life of the human being because the human being has greater awareness of what is going to happen, suffers more before dying and at the same time the family and friends of the human being will suffer a great deal if the human dies.

7 Henry: Can you get to the point. I need to cook my vegetables. Tom: Patience brother. From the argument we can conclude that the human being has a greater potential for future happiness and thus worth saving. It is the same principle that is used when the decision of using animals for medical research or killing them to feed the starving is made. 4 Henry: Ethical vegetarians, a group where I happen to be a member, are for the view that the same reasons against killing humans for food apply to against to killings animals for food.

We also believe that killing an animal like killing a human can only be permissible and justified in extreme circumstances. Eating a living creature simply because of its enjoyable taste, convenience or nutritional value is not enough cause.8 Tom: So you are okay with the same animals being used for medical research? Henry: I haven’t agreed to that either because am not in support of the in-humane handling of animals. Tom: Let me tell you that whenever these animals are being used for such experiments they are handled humanely and in most cases are anaesthetized so as to prevent them from experiencing unnecessary pain.

Henry: It is at this point that am also compelled to highlight to you the importance of preserving nature and in essence the sparing of animals. First these animals and nature itself have an intrinsic right to exist and the preservation of the same enhances biological diversity which stabilizes the ecological regimes hence sustaining it for future generations.9 5 Tom: I think we are getting home now. Because your argument about preservation of nature and the animals is not far from what am saying about getting the right medicine to sustain the lives of human beings and other animals.

Read More